On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 1:53 AM, Robinson, Eric <[email protected]> wrote: >> clusterlabs.org/doc is as good as i can do for docs. >> i try to keep it up-to-date and version specific (so that >> documenting corosync 2.x doesn't obliterate the cman/plugin stuff). >> >> packages are mostly in the hands of the distros though. >> building the entire stack (and keeping it up-to-date) on all >> the major distros is a massive job - i'd never get any actual >> work done. >> and typically not easy unless you work for the enterprise >> distro you're building for. >> >> In theory you should at most need "scientific linux" (even >> clusterlabs.org/rpm-next is somewhat optional) + your choice >> of shell/gui. >> > > > It's a good site, and it is easy to see that a lot of work has gone into it. > For me, though, it seems there are a few gaps where historical knowledge is > assumed that a newbie does not necessarily have. (Case in point: I have 5 > clusters in production and I have no idea what you mean by "cman/plugin > stuff.")
Fair point. For the sake of clarification though: Unlike Heartbeat (or Corosync 2.x) Corosync 1.x does not provide the notion of quorum that Pacemaker needs. There are two possible sources cman[1] or the pacemaker plugin. Conceptually they do the same thing so when I'm being lazy I tend to lump them together as cman/plugin :-) [1] Which also happens to be a corosync plugin but thats beside the point. >There has been a lot of change and development over the years, and there is a >whole lot of Google noise, some of which can seem fairly authoritative, but >which is nevertheless dated. Also, for some reason, people who write articles >often don't date them, so when you're reading something you Googled it is >often not clear how current and applicable it is. This leads newbies down long >and fruitless paths. There's also a lot of repos out there and it is not at >all clear which is the best to use. (Case in point: I originally used the >clusterlabs repo, but then I was told to use the clusterlabs-next repo--which >seems to have worked--but now I guess I'm being told that I should no > rmally want to use the scientific-linux repo? I may have misunderstood.) > > I would be thankful for a web page that said something along these lines: > > 1. No matter what else you may have read elsewhere, this is THE AUTHORITATIVE > source for the latest up-to-date information and downloads. > > 2. Here's the right repo. Already you're hosed. Unless you try and force everyone onto the same distro. If you say "pick one and document it", then I'll point you to Clusters from Scratch :-) > > 3. Here's links to the sources. > > 4. Here's a glossary of terms, with identification of ones that are > outdated/deprecated and what they were replaced with. > > 5, Here's the most common pitfalls that newbies experience. > > 6. Here's where you can get community and/or paid support. > > It's getting close to Christmas, so there's my wish list. :-) Well I happen to be working on a new landing page which partially addresses these points. I'll see if I can can get most of them covered. _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
